Jump to content

Talk:2013 in science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I have noticed this issue in the 2012 article and since we are just starting with this article, I prefer to raise this here now. The external links provided inline after each news item surely is for the purpose of supporting the fact and for further reading. As such, I feel we should add all such links as references and not inline links. While including ext links inline makes it easier for users to click the link to read more, this "ease of use" argument can be made for any other article and there is a reason why we have a seperate references section. If the links are properly formatted as in citeweb template, it might help future readers if and when the link goes dead. WP:ELRC and Wikipedia:Embedded citations has some thoughts to offer. Is there any other reason why it is linked inline that I may have missed? Suraj T 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point – I wouldn't have a problem with changing them to inline cites. I think the inline ex. links are just a habit on the recent "year in science" articles. However, it would be a very big job to go back to an article as long as 2012 in science and convert all its hundreds of ex. links to cites. At least this article has only just been started. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I commented here. Since this article is in the early stages, this can be formatted easily and if the "citing" is agreed upon, it can be followed further through the year. And the 2012 article can be formatted, if agreed, when we have time. What is the urgency here? I am willing to format links in 2012 one by one when I find time, if it is agreeable to you; as I see you as one of the prominent contributors. It may take a long time, but, lacking a lot of willing contributors, it will be upto us to decide the "deadline". If no one objects, we will start in a few days. Suraj T 15:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. I'll make sure the next items I add to the list have inline cites instead of basic ex. links. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it doesn't deter contributors here when we expect them to cite the links. A simple < ref >[ httplink description ]< /ref > will do for starters. We can build from that. Let's get more opinions on this, if any, before starting. Suraj T 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we do actually wind up replacing the hyperlinks with proper cites, we should add a note to the reader (like the existing one warning against COPYVIO) asking them to use cite-web/cite-news/cite-book templates instead of simple external links. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - the usual inline cites format is *entirely* ok w/ me - thank you for trying to make the issue clearer - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there haven't been any objections – do you think we should start converting the links to inline cites now? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since no objections were voiced, I think we can proceed to add further links using citation templates. Also per your suggestion, a commented-out note to editors should be added along with the copyright notice asking them to use citation templates (if possible, with a link to this discussion). Suraj T 10:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's done – all inline links are now proper citations. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the solar flare count

[edit]

out of curiosity, would the solar flare count? [1],[2]. Bud0011 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace centenary 7 Nov 2013 --- Questions

[edit]

On 7 November this year is the centenary of the death of Alfred Russel Wallace.

A quick Google search reveals quite a few serious websites on the planned events.

  • Should we put an entry here?
  • Create an article?
  • Put a section in the main Wallace article?
  • And does anybody know the right way to put something in the events part of the front page?

Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement. Bud0011 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what do I do? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Bud0011 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of updates?

[edit]

Apart from the recent Nobel Prize entries, pretty much all the latest updates have come from me during the last several weeks. I'm happy to keep editing - but it would be nice if others would contribute more. Also, we need more thumbnail pictures down the side of the page (they stopped in mid-July). Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size Split?

[edit]

Support split - Article is over 300 kB and should be split by month or quarter. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against split - Leave it. The article works well and is fine how it is. People can navigate via the sublinks at the top. Splitting the article would just make things convoluted. Besides, we're in December now - the article won't get much bigger. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would like to mention that an article of this size crashes the Wikipedia app on mobile devices, some tablets, and Apple products. I'm neutral on the decision, but if it is split, what would the format be? By specific science? By season? (Tigerghost (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: speaking as a lay reader, there might be merit in splitting the article out by field of study, and keeping only the major discoveries and stories within this main article. Seegoon (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support split - preferably by quarter, though by month would also be acceptable. As it is it's just too long.Q6637p (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose split: What exactly is the problem of the article being a bit longer? There are many long articles and I can access it just fine with the app. The other {year} in science articles aren't split as well so this shouldn't either - one of the reasons being consistency. But also most people aren't interested that much in the particular topics but like to skim through the article stopping here and there - this is not possible when the article gets split. In my opinion this article is just fine, it's supposed to be as long as this as much has happened in 2013 - actually all the other {year} in science articles need to catch up with the proper coverage of the titular topic in this article. --Fixuture (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2013 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal discovered in 201

[edit]

Anyon 5.193.7.190 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_science&oldid=1253762194"